Israel, having lost the battle for the moral high-ground of its legitimacy against a pro-Palestinian, history rewriting, disinformation campaign, must prioritize resources to recoup its losses in the psych-ops war - which by capturing the worldview of most media and academia - has infiltrated most popular understanding.

Yemini contends that an "industry of lies" (including the media, academia, and the U.N.) seeks to excommunicate and depose Jewish rule of Israel, in similar fashion to apartheid South Africa. This is an existential challenge more threatening than Hamas, Yemini cautions in his call for action (exclusive to DemoCast at the Herzliya Policy Conference in Israel.)

Rarely in modern history have nations faced genuine existential threats. Wars are waged to change regimes, alter borders, acquire resources, and impose ideologies, but almost never to eliminate another state and its people. This was certainly the case during World War II, in which the Allies sought to achieve the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and to oust their odious leaders, but never to destroy the German and Japanese states or to annihilate their populations. In the infrequent cases in which modern states were threatened with their survival, the experience proved to be traumatic in the extreme. Military coups, popular uprisings, and civil strife are typical by-products of a state’s encounter with even a single existential threat.

The State of Israel copes not only with one but with at least seven existential threats on a daily basis. These threats are extraordinary not only for their number but also for their diversity. In addition to external military dangers from hostile regimes and organizations, the Jewish State is endangered by domestic opposition, demographic trends, and the erosion of core values. Indeed, it is difficult if not impossible to find an example of another state in the modern epic that has faced such a multiplicity and variety of concurrent existential threats.

# 3 - Delegitimization

Since the mid-1970s, Israel’s enemies have waged an increasingly successful campaign of delegitimizing Israel in world forums, intellectual and academic circles, and the press. The campaign has sought to depict Israel as a racist, colonialist state that proffers extraordinary rights to its Jewish citizens and denies fundamental freedoms to the Arabs. These accusations have found their way into standard textbooks on the Middle East and have become part of the daily discourse at the United Nations and other influential international organizations. Most recently, Israel has been depicted as an apartheid state, effectively comparing the Jewish State to South Africa under its former white supremacist regime. Many of Israel’s counterterrorism efforts are branded as war crimes, and Israeli generals are indicted by foreign courts.

Though the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza clearly contributed to the tarnishing of Israel’s image, increasingly the delegitimization campaign focuses not on Israel’s policy in the territories but on its essence as the Jewish national state.

Such calumny was, in the past, dismissed as harmless rhetoric. But as the delegitimization of Israel gained prominence, the basis was laid for international measures to isolate Israel and punish it with sanctions similar to those that brought down the South African regime. The academic campaigns to boycott Israeli universities and intellectuals are adumbrations of the type of strictures that could destroy Israel economically and deny it the ability to defend itself against the existential threats posed by terrorism and Iran.

20090623

Officials of the Simon Wiesenthal Center are urging world leaders including the United States, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organization Islamic Conference to call for an immediate emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on the brutal suppression of the Iranian people following the sham elections in Iran.

“The brave citizens of Iran, have against all odds, sent a clarion call to the world that they want freedom and democracy but so far the world has turned their back as innocents have been killed on the streets of Tehran and other cities,” Rabbi Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, (founder and dean and associate dean, respectively) of the Jewish Human Rights NGO said in a statement from Los Angeles.

“The UN cannot be open for business only to condemn Israel. It is unbelievable that to date, not a single country has called for UN agencies to act. Now is the time for world leaders to call for an emergency session of the UN Security Council to send the mullahs a clear message that any further violence against their own citizens will be met with swift sanctions,” the Wiesenthal Center statement concluded.

DemoCast's video coverage includes exclusive interview with Rabbi Marvin Hier which precedes excerpts from his speech, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, and Roxanna Ganji of the Organization for an Iranian Parliamentary Monarchy.

Tell us, where is everyone? Where did all the people who demonstrated against Israel’s brutality in Operation Cast Lead, in the Second Lebanon War, in Operation Defensive Shield, or even in The Hague, when we were dragged there unwillingly after daring to build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bombers, disappear to? We see demonstrations here and there, but these are mainly Iranian exiles. Europe, in principle, is peaceful and calm. So is the United States. Here and there a few dozens, here and there a few hundreds. Have they evaporated because it is Tehran and not here?

All the peace-loving and justice-loving Europeans, British professors in search of freedom and equality, the friends filling the newspapers, magazines and various academic journals with various demands for boycotting Israel, defaming Zionism and blaming us and it for all the ills and woes of the world—could it be that they have taken a long summer vacation? Now of all times, when the Basij hooligans have begun to slaughter innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? Aren’t they connected to the Internet? Don’t they have YouTube? Has a terrible virus struck down their computer? Have their justice glands been removed in a complicated surgical procedure (to be re-implanted successfully for the next confrontation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, whose sole sin is the aspiration to freedom, the world is silent?

Imagine that this were not happening now in Tehran, but rather here. Let’s say in Nablus. Spontaneous demonstrations of Palestinians turning into an ongoing bloodbath. Border Policemen armed with knives, on motorcycles, butchering demonstrators. A young woman downed by a sniper in midday, dying before the cameras. Actually, why imagine? We can just recall what happened with the child Mohammed a-Dura. How the affair (which was very harsh, admittedly) swept the world from one end to another. The fact that a later independent investigative report raised tough questions as to the identity of the weapon from which a-Dura was shot, did not make a difference to anyone. The Zionists were to blame, and that was that.

And where are the world’s leaders? Where is the wondrous rhetorical ability of Barack Obama? Where has his sublime vocabulary gone? Where is the desire, that is supposed to be built into all American presidents, to defend and act on behalf of freedom seekers around the globe? What is this stammering?

A source who is connected to the Iranian and security situation, said yesterday that if Obama had shown on the Iranian matter a quarter of the determination with which he assaulted the settlements in the territories, everything would have looked different. “The demonstrators in Iran are desperate for help,” said the man, who served in very senior positions for many years, “they need to know that they have backing, that there is an entire world that supports them, but instead they see indifference. And this is happening at such a critical stage of this battle for the soul of Iran and the freedom of the Iranian people. It’s sad.”

Or the European Union, for example. The organization that speaks of justice and peace all year round. Why should its leaders not declare clearly that the world wants to see a democratic and free Iran, and support it unreservedly? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still connected to dark places? The pathetic excuse that such support would give Khamenei and Ahmadinejad an excuse to call the demonstrators “Western agents,” does not hold water. They call them “Western agents” in any case, so what difference does it make?

To think that just six months ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, leftists and Islamists raised pictures of Nasrallah, the protégé of the ayatollah regime. The fact that this was a benighted regime did not trouble them. This is madness, but it is sinking in and influencing the weary West. If there is a truly free world here, let it appear immediately! And impose sanctions, for example, on those who slaughter the members of their own people. Just as it imposed them on North Korea, or on the military regime in Burma. It is only a question of will, not of ability.

Apparently, something happens to the global adherence to justice and equality, when it comes to Iran. The oppression is overt and known. The Internet era broadcasts everything live, and it is all for the better. Hooligans acting on behalf of the regime shoot and stab masses of demonstrators, who cry out for freedom.

Is anything more needed? Apparently it is. Because it is to no avail. The West remains indifferent. Obama is polite. Why shouldn’t he be, after all, he aspires to a dialogue with the ayatollahs. And that is very fine and good, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder on the streets.

At this stage, one must forget the rules of etiquette for a moment. The voices being heard from Obama elicit concern that we are actually dealing with a new version of Chamberlain. Being conciliatory is a positive trait, particularly when it follows the clumsy bellicosity of George Bush, but when conciliation becomes blindness, we have a problem.

The courageous voice of Angela Merkel, who issued yesterday a firm statement of support for the Iranian people and its right to freedom, is in the meantime a lone voice in the Western wilderness. It is only a shame that she has not announced an economic boycott, in light of the fact that this is the European country that is most invested in building infrastructure in Iran. She was joined by British Foreign Secretary Miliband. It is little, it is late, it is not enough. Millions of freedom seekers have taken to the streets in Iran, and the West is straddling the fence, one leg here, the other leg there.

There is a different Islam. This is already clear today. Even in Iran. There are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, equality for women. These millions loathe Khamenei, Chavez and Nasrallah too.

But part of the global left wing prefers the ayatollah regime over them. The main thing is for them to raise flags against Israel and America. The question is why the democrats, the liberals, and Obama, Blair and Sarkozy, are continuing to sit on the fence. This is not a fence of separation, it is a fence of shame.

Los Angeles' Iran Solidarity Rally was shocked and stirred Monday evening by a guerilla street-theater performance by 2 sons of immigrants who acted out the ruthless brutality that the Islamic Republic of Iran metes to civil rights demonstrators.

Brothers Reza and Mohammed Mostahi demonstrated some of their Santa Monica College-learned cosmetology skills in creating a horror scene for a stunned crowd of fellow Iranian-Americans and Iranian refugees.

The Tehran-born brothers' performance inspired jeers of, "Down with Islamic Republic," and "Down with Hezbollah" - referring to the regime's puppet terrorist group that they imported to brutalize election-fraud protestors into intimidation.

Four of Democracy Broadcasting's reports of Iranians exposing Islamist ruthlessness over the past 3 days have been recognized by by CNN's broadcasting them. DemoCast is proud of the recognition - as a vital source in covering Islamist counter-humanism for over four years.

20090621

Over 1,000 Iranian-Americans rallied in front of L.A.'s Federal Building on Saturday afternoon/evening in solidarity with the Iranian rebellion . They called for the West's political and moral support for the popular movement seeking to change the Islamic regime to a secular one.

Among the attendees were siblings from the Mohammadi Family- politcal-prisoner victims of the 1999 Tehran University crackdown in which brothers Akbar and Manoucher Mohammedi - were jailed and tortured (in Akbar's case -tortured to death) by the ruthless Islamic regime:

Mohammadi sisters Nasrin and Simie (jailed along with her father) help put the regime's oppression of human-rights in context.

Torture-victim, brother Manoucher Mohammedi (translated by Vida Fathi) calls for American support for the people's rebellion against the Ayatollahs' regime - which U.S. President Jimmy Carter helped to enable.

Iranian-Americans, Mr. Farid Farhan and Mr. Jacob (last name withheld)explain that the overthrow of the Ayatollah's Islamic regime would effectively "cut-off the head of the snake of global terrorism." This would end global terrorism from the world's primary facilitator of the global terror networks- including al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban.

This prinicipled, Iranian refugee to America (who for security reasons chose to remain anonymous) explains the apocalyptic, Iranian regime's mentality, global ambitions, and the threats to Westerners through their global network of lobbyists, operatives, and spies.

He explains that the totalitarian Islamists exploit Islam as a means to attain their meglomaniacal goals of global, political domination (using Muslims to weaken and conquer the West from within to spread the Caliphate).

In this March, 2007 interview, he explained to DemoCast the need for the West to save the Iranian people through strangling and destabilizing the Mullah regime financially. He compares Washington's hopes of negotiating stopping the regime's hidden nuclear weaponization to 'taking an aspirin for the headache will not rid one's brain of a cancer.'

This incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

... Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

Is Washington's failure to support anti-Jihadist demonstrators (against Ahmadinejad and the enemies of Zion) actually just misguided (or possibly malevolent) policy-making?

Might the Obama adminstration's Islamist affinities (or Islamists having infiltrated his administration) be inhibiting America's ability to lead the free world to defeat Jihadism in Iran and at home?

"Without support from the United States and other Western countries, Iranian opposition groups will likely stop demonstrations against the Iranian regime and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declared victory in Friday's presidential elections, senior Israeli defense officials said Sunday.

According to the officials, a Mousavi victory would have been a blow to the regime, which is led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, since the reformist candidate had called for changes to the implementation of Islamic law, particularly pertaining to the status of women in Iranian society.

"There have been mass arrests throughout Iran," another official explained, referring to the arrest of over 100 members of the reformist groups. "The regime fears the possibility of a revolution and will do everything it can to prevent that from happening."(published June 15, 2009)

As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren't directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi. Beyond token Congressional support for civil society groups and the brave reporting of the Persian-language and U.S.-funded Radio Farda, America's role here is limited. Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people."

Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control.

The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.

"Engagement'' with the foul Ahmadinejad and the turbaned dictators he answers to has always been a chimera; if that wasn't clear before last week's brazenly rigged election results, surely it is clear now. Iran's ruling clerics, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, didn't just endorse the Ahmadinejad approach - the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the vile anti-Semitism, the demonization of America, the partnership with terrorists, the trampling of human rights. They unreservedly embraced it. Ahmadinejad's fraudulent reelection was hailed by Khamenei as "a divine blessing'' and "a glittering event.'' With such a regime, no compromise is possible. Neither is impartiality. Like it or not, the White House must choose: Will America stand with the mullahs and their goons, or with the endangered people of Iran?

Eyewitness video shows the brutality this regime is capable of. Solidarity rallies from around the world are shown at the end of the playlist.

Obama doesn't want to take the students' side because it would mean admitting that he was wrong until now, andit would mean that he would have to take out Iran's nuclear program - or allow Israel to do so - without first forcing Israel to create a 'Palestinian' state reichlet as a quid pro quo. That 'Palestinian' reichlet may well be the only defined foreign policy goal this administration has andit is not going to let a few dead Iranians force it to give up that goal.

Taking the students' side would also mean acknowledging that there are blacks and whites in the world - and not just shades of gray. It would mean admitting that we don't live in a utopian community where grievances are resolved by negotiations and no one goes to war.

20090611

Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics, Columbia University, Lincoln Mitchell, criticizes the progressive blogosphere community's anti-Semitism, cloaked in anti-Israelism - in The Shooting, Anti-Semitism and Blogging, which is published today, June 11, 2009, in the Huntington Post:

You can't have it both ways, expressing righteous indignation when a white supremacist attempts to shoot visitors to the Holocaust Museum, while no longer being startled by the suggestion that the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States as well as millions of hard working, tax paying and voting Americans somehow don't have America's best interest in mind and are disloyal to their country, because of their support for Israel. Nonetheless, these suggestions are made almost daily in the comments section of this website.

The notion that one can be critical of Israeli policy without being anti-Semitic is, of course, true. Many, if not most, American Jews are critical of various aspects of Israeli policy while being far from anti-Semitic. However, the logic of this must end somewhere because too often this truism is interpreted to mean that anti-Israel sentiment can never be anti-Semitic. When it is suggested that Jews are subverting or controlling American foreign policy, putting what is good for Israel ahead of what is good for the US, or hoodwinking good Christians into supporting Israel, the criticism is no longer targeted on Israel. While one can criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite, suggestions of Jewish conspiracies or that Jews are not loyal citizens cannot so easily be made without being anti-Semitic. Historically, these have been at the core of the very definition of anti-Semitism

It is not just criticism of Israel that is the issue here. It is the regularity with which, in these comments and elsewhere, virtually every foreign policy issue is related back to Israel and somehow the Jews are blamed. Some friends and I play a game with foreign policy blogs on the Huffington Post where we try to guess how long it will take before Israel or the Jews are mentioned. Usually this occurs by the tenth comment, regardless of the ostensible topic of the piece in question. This is an obsession that is not healthy and goes beyond simply garden variety criticism of Israel.

Obviously the people making those comments are not going out and trying to kill Jews, but it is both a symptom and a contributing cause of a climate which facilitates, and which will very possibly continue to facilitate, violence of the sort we saw Wednesday.

This is an issue which should be of concern to all of the readers, bloggers, commenters and others who consider ourselves part of the Huffington Post community. We are all guilty of something, possibly hypocrisy, neglect or moral cowardice when we let these comments go unanswered and then loudly condemn acts of violence targeted at Jews. The connection, while not direct, is real. Those of us who call ourselves progressives have a special responsibility to speak out against bigotry in all forms, even when it starts out as being against Israel and seeps into anti-Semitism.

The author of Hitler's Willing Executioners (and son of a Holocaust survivor) Daniel Goldhagen explains how easily self-identifyingly moral people can evolve to tolerate - even commit - genocide. At the Los Angeles Holocaust Day Memorial in April, he relates first-hand interiews with contemporary genociders and genocide victims which he uncovered for his upcoming book, "Worse than War," being released as a PBS documentary in August.

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

Waldron was reviewing "Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections "in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism." In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

20090604

Oscar-winner, social activist, Jon Voight, asserts that now is the time for the free world to come together in a show of strength, not apology, for America's allies having defended Muslim peoples from oppression.

Carving a hostile, Palestinian state out of Israel in hopes of appeasing the Muslim world sworn against her, Voight cautions, will make the West appear weak and embolden its Islamist enemies, just as Israel's de-occupying Gaza in '05 proved.

Mr. Voight appeared at the premiere of the 2009 Israel Film Festival in Hollywood, where Diane Warren, Robert Lantos, and John Fishel received honors. Mr. Voight presented the Lifetime Achievement Award to Auschwitz survivor Branko Lustig for his work in such films as Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down, Fiddler on the Roof, and Schindler's List.

20090603

"Pakistan and other Muslim countries will not receive another penny of American aid unless and until they demonstrate - in a transparent and inspectable fashion - that they are working against, not abetting, the forces of the global jihad. This will include instituting comprehensive nationwide programs to teach against the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism, teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims must live together as equal citizens on an indefinite basis, without any attempts by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.

I trust you will understand that we cannot continue to fund the cutting of our own throat.

Afghanistan and Iraq must immediately guarantee the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, or American arms will no longer devote themselves to keeping regimes in power that do not guarantee those rights.

I will call upon Israel to make no further territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrated only that such concessions whet, rather than sate, the appetites of Islamic jihadists for more concessions. The assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace ignores not only recent history, but also the stated goal of the jihadist movements arrayed against Israel: the destruction of the Jewish state..."

20090601

Hundreds of thousands of Americans made a public display of their support for the Zionist (i.e., Jewish national refuge) State of Israel on Sunday, the 31st of May 2009 up New York's Fifth Avenue.Given the displays of anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism so pervasive in anti-war, far-leftist, and pro-Palestinian demonstrations, this parade provides a breath of "miner's canary" air - of a climate that permits safe display staging of such a public demonstration of Judaism and pro-Zionism.Our on-location video reportage of the Salute to Israel 2008 Parade reveals the strength and diversity of Americans supporting the Jewish national homeland.

The parade provides an insight into the true core values of Jewish and Israeli culture - and its struggle to maintain its identity under fire from antagonists.Also, watch the parade's history and the behind the scenes look:

New York's Jewry comprises the largest Jewish population of this embattled people outside of Israel. Given (the only sanctuary for minorities' rights in the Middle East) Israel's significance at the vanguard against global Jihad - a terrorizing campaign which NY'ers know first-hand, broadcast TV stations deny public audiences equivalent televised coverage of the Israel Parade that they gladly provide to the Irish St. Patrick's Day or even the Puerto Rican Day parades.The history re-writing far-left and Islamist jihadists (led by Jewish convert to Islam, Yousef al Khattab - publisher of an online guide to terror-attack the Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters) repugnantly propagandized in full force for photo-journalists and their anti-Zionist blogosphere.